Madhya Pradesh Court June 2012 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Prasant Bansod Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-22-2012
W.P.No.6791/2010 22.06.2012 Shri B.R.Koshta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Panel Lawyer for respondents on advance copy. Heard on the question of admission. The challenge in this writ petition is with respect to cancellation of the candidature of petitioner for sending him to Patwari training, on the ground that the petitioner had made the application in appropriate manner. He was permitted to take part in the written examination which he qualified, but subsequently he was refused to be sent for training. It is contended that such an act of the respondents was not justified. In response to the notice issued of this writ petition, a return has been filed by the respondents and it has been categorically contended that the petitioner was not registered in the employment exchange as was a necessary condition mentioned in the advertisement Annx.P/1. This fact was not earlier examined and the petitioner was permitted to take part in the written examin...
Ambika Singh Kaurav Vs. M.P.Road Transport Corporation
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-22-2012
W.P.No.3554/2009 22/06/2012 Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri P.K.Mishra, learned counsel for Respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3. Shri J.K.Pillai, learned counsel for Respondent Nos.4 & 5. Petitioner is a retired employee and was working as a Conductor in the M.P.State Road Transport Corporation. At the time of retirement, he was working in Narsinghpur Depot, he was a member of the Provident Fund Scheme and the benefits accruing to him by the Scheme have not been paid to him from November, 1970 to July, 1975. Claiming the aforesaid benefit, petitioner has filed this writ petition. Shri J.K.Pillai, learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.4 & 5 submits that at the relevant time for which the claim is made, the petitioner was working in the Divisional Office at Gwalior and the records of the petitioner for working for the period from 1970 to 1975 are not available and in case. the petitioner submits the documents pertaining to said period before Respondent Nos.4 &...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Mrs. Rajshree Sharma
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-22-2012
1 W.A.No.629/12 22.6.2012 Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, Govt. Advocate for appellants. Shri Udyan Tiwari, Advocate present in Court appears for respondent. I.A.No.7535/12 for exemption from filing certified copy of the impugned order It is submitted by the appellants that certified copy of the impugned order is filed in W.A.No.539/12 which has already been admitted for hearing. It is further submitted that a common judgment was passed in all the matteRs.so the appellants may be exempted from filing certified copy of the impugned order in this appeal. Considering the order passed in W.A.No.539/12, we allow this application and the appellants are exempted from filing certified copy of the impugned order. Heard on admission. Admit. Notice on behalf of respondent is accepted by Shri Udyan Tiwari, learned counsel. I.A.No.7534/12 for stay Notice of this application is accepted by Shri Udyan Tiwari. He prays four weeks time to file reply. Prayer is allowed. Be listed for hearing on 26.7.2012 alongwi...
Jila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-22-2012
Writ Petition No.8684/2008 22.6.2012 Shri Ashok Tiwari, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri Tabrez Khan, Advocate, for respondent no.1. Heard on admission. This petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution, is directed against the order dated 5.5.2008 passed by the Madhya Pradesh State Cooperative Tribunal, Bhopal (in short, the Tribunal.) whereby it has dismissed the petitioners Second Appeal No.229/2007 confirming the orders of Deputy Registrar and Joint Registrar that there is no outstanding amount against the respondents. The petitioner had advanced mid-term loan of Rs.4,75,000/- to respondent no.1 on interest at the rate of 16% per annum to be paid in quarterly installments and in case of default, penal rent at the rate of 3% per annum was chargeable. The loan was taken by respondent no.1 for installing a rice mill at Waraseoni, District Balaghat. Respondent nos.2 and 3 stood as his surety. Since the respondents failed to pay the aforesaid amount, the petitioner filed Dispute No...
Jila Sahkari Krishi Aur GramIn Vikas Bank Maryadit Seoni Vs. Sunil Kum ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-22-2012
R.P.No.425/2012 22.6.2012 Shri Ashok Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant. This application has been filed for review/ recall of the order passed on 14.3.2012 in W.P.No.4769/2011. It is stated in the application that the order passed by the Joint Registrar Cooperative Societies vide Annexure P/5 cannot be implemented and therefore, the order be recalled and the petition be heard. Having heard learned counsel for the applicant and on a perusal of the order passed by this Court on 14.3.2012 in W.P.No.4769/2011 it is clear that this Court had directed the applicants herein to comply with the order passed by Joint Registrar vide Annexure P/5 and in the alternate it was directed that in case applicant feels that the order cannot be implemented they were given option to reject the same by recording reasons. In view of the fact that applicants were already granted liberty to refuse to implement the order of Joint Registrar by assigning reasons, no case is made out for review / recall of ...
Manoj Kumar Jaat Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-22-2012
1 W.P.No.7070/2009 Manot Kumar Jaat versus State of M.P.& ORS.22.06.2012 Shri H.S.Dubey learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Puneet Shroti, learned Panel Lawyer, for the respondent/State. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition alleging inaction on the part of the police authorities on the complaint filed by the petitioner regarding interference in his rights over the land in question. It is informed that an order in favour of the petitioner under section 145 CrPC has already been passed and the petitioner has been placed in possession. Apparently, the matter relates to a dispute regarding property and in such circumstances the petitioner's appropriate remedy is to take up proceedings by filing a civil suit or a complaint case as the case may be. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case Sakiri Vasu versus State of Uttar Pradesh and otheRs.(2008) 2 SCC 40.and Divine Retreat Centre versus State of Kerala and otheRs.(2008) 3 SCC 542.I...
Smt. Bina Bai Vs. Amarnath Rai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-22-2012
M.C.C.No.554/2012 22.6.2012 Shri Manot Rajak, counsel for petitioneRs.This application is filed seeking extension of time for deposit of cost, which was directed by order dated 13.12.2011 in M.C.C.No.1110/2011. It is submitted that the cost as directed could not be deposited within thirty days, however it has been deposited on 19.3.2012. For the reasons stated in the application, extension of time is prayed. The application is supported by an affidavit of Pradeep Kumar Dwivedi. Considering the reasons stated in the application, prayer made in the application is allowed. Time period for deposit of cost as directed in M.C.C.No.1110/2011 by order dated 13.12.2011 is extended till 19.3.2012, the date on which the cost was deposited. Office to restore Second Appeal to its number and to place it before the appropriate Bench for hearing. This M.C.C., stands finally disposed of, with no order as to costs. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) JUDGE M....
D.C. Gujarkar Vs. Bhel Anusuchit Jati/Janjati ShA.Samiti
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-22-2012
S.A.No.116/2002 22.6.2012 Shri Devesh Jain, counsel for appellant. None for respondents. I.A.No.5607/2012 for modification/correction of the order dated 7.8.2002. Learned counsel for appellant submitted that in the substantial question of law name of M.R.Nandeshwar. has been wrongly typed, while at the relevant time K.K.Machiwal. was the president of the society and in place of M.R.Nandeshwar. name of K.K.Machiwal. may be substituted. In view of aforesaid, it is directed that the substantial question of law, as framed on 7.8.2002 be corrected and shall be read thus :- Whether suit filed by K.K.Machiwal as President of the society was maintainable while he was removed from the society as disqualified from membership ?.. Accordingly the application is allowed. Office to place this appeal for hearing before the regular Bench in the 1st week of July, 2012. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) JUDGE M....
Sr. General Manager V. F. J. Vs. Summer Burman [Dead] Smt. Hira Bai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-22-2012
W.P.No.18288/2011 22/06/2012 Shri Mohan Sausarkar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Ashish Agrawal, learned counsel for Respondent No.1. This petition is admitted for hearing. It is a case, where the employee was dismissed from service on the ground of unauthorized absence. After dismissal from service, he challenged his removal from service by filing an appeal before the appellate authority and the same was rejected, thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 before the Central Administrative Tribunal which was dismissed on the ground of delay, simultaneously, he raised a dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 under Section 10, a review application was also dismissed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. The question involved in the matter is as to how an award can be passed by the labour court under the Industrial Dispute Act, when in a prior proceedings initiated, an application filed under Section 19 ...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Dr. Mrs. Vasanti Moghe
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-22-2012
1 W.A.No.626/12 22.6.2012 Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, Govt. Advocate for appellants. Shri Udyan Tiwari, Advocate present in Court appears for respondent. I.A.No.7531/12 for exemption from filing certified copy of the impugned order It is submitted by the appellants that certified copy of the impugned order is filed in W.A.No.539/12 which has already been admitted for hearing. It is further submitted that a common judgment was passed in all the matteRs.so the appellants may be exempted from filing certified copy of the impugned order in this appeal. Considering the order passed in W.A.No.539/12, we allow this application and the appellants are exempted from filing certified copy of the impugned order. Heard on admission. Admit. Notice on behalf of respondent is accepted by Shri Udyan Tiwari, learned counsel. I.A.No.7529/12 for stay Notice of this application is accepted by Shri Udyan Tiwari. He prays four weeks time to file reply. Prayer is allowed. Be listed for hearing on 26.7.2012 alongwi...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »